It's 2018 and USB Type-C Is Still a Mess (androidauthority.com) 330
An anonymous reader shares a column: USB Type-C was billed as the solution for all our future cable needs, unifying power and data delivery with display and audio connectivity, and ushering in an age of the one-size-fits-all cable. Unfortunately for those already invested in the USB Type-C ecosystem, which is anyone who has bought a flagship phone in the past couple of years, the standard has probably failed to live up to the promises. Even the seemingly most basic function of USB Type-C -- powering devices -- has become a mess of compatibility issues, conflicting proprietary standards, and a general lack of consumer information to guide purchasing decisions. The problem is that the features supported by different devices aren't clear, yet the defining principle of the USB Type-C standard makes consumers think everything should just work.
The charging example clearly demonstrates a very common frustration with the standard as it currently stands. Moving phones between different chargers, even of the same current and voltage ratings, often won't produce the same charging speeds. Furthermore, picking a third party USB Type-C cable to replace the typically too short included cable can result in losing fast charging capabilities.
The charging example clearly demonstrates a very common frustration with the standard as it currently stands. Moving phones between different chargers, even of the same current and voltage ratings, often won't produce the same charging speeds. Furthermore, picking a third party USB Type-C cable to replace the typically too short included cable can result in losing fast charging capabilities.
New Standard == broken ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet another example of products going out the door while a spec is still in flux -- you get a random collection of things which do and don't work.
This is why being the first adopter of most tech is a dumb idea, because that first generation is going to be shit.
I'm long since over giving a damn about being on the cutting edge, because that edge cuts in more than one direction.
apple missed it with too few ports when 1 is neede (Score:2)
apple missed it up with too few ports when 1 is needed for power.
Re: (Score:2)
And they also dropped the ball by removing the classic USB 3.0 type A ports at the same time. What was the point of that? You can have both USB 3.0 and USB-C on the same computer.
Re:apple missed it with too few ports when 1 is ne (Score:4, Insightful)
so apple can sell $29.99 adapters
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And they also dropped the ball by removing the classic USB 3.0 type A ports at the same time. What was the point of that? You can have both USB 3.0 and USB-C on the same computer.
And you can use any USB 3.0 device with a USB-C port with a cable change or a $2 passive adapter.
Now what?
Re: (Score:2)
No, you can't. The official recommendation for the flagship phones with USB C connectors and USB 3's fast charging / power delivery shit is to ONLY use a C to C cable. They explicitly state things are NOT supported with an A to C cable or adapter.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you can't. The official recommendation for the flagship phones with USB C connectors and USB 3's fast charging / power delivery shit is to ONLY use a C to C cable. They explicitly state things are NOT supported with an A to C cable or adapter.
If you are talking about charging, then that is an entirely different story. I was talking about data transfer (with maybe minimal power supplying, like to a USB-stick).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What's the point in having thinner laptops if we need to carry adapters around?
Re: (Score:2)
And they also dropped the ball by removing the classic USB 3.0 type A ports at the same time. What was the point of that? You can have both USB 3.0 and USB-C on the same computer.
Eliminating the USB 3.0 ports allowed Ive to shave another 0.01mm off the thickness of the laptop.
Of course, you're not supposed to think about the fact that you now have to carry around a dock, in addition to your laptop, if you need to use any ports other than USB-C. Nor are you to think about the crap keyboard you'll have to put up with, going forward.
#Courage
Re: (Score:2)
And they also dropped the ball by removing the classic USB 3.0 type A ports at the same time. What was the point of that? You can have both USB 3.0 and USB-C on the same computer.
That's why I got a Dell XPS. Small, light AND powerful, and has regular power jack along with USB-C and USB-A
Boring (Score:3)
again non-Apple-users educating everyone what a fail Apple products are.
If only they could fail once in their life so successfully as Apple does...
MBP user here, travelling very happy with two ports and a tiny USB-C to -A / HDMI Adaptor bought for €10. Every external device I use works fine and the stuff I carry is greatly reduced. Maybe because I didn't buy the cheapest Chinese cables / power banks / chargers ?
Re: (Score:2)
Coming next : No ports at all.
Now that would be "courage"
Re: (Score:3)
apple missed it up with too few ports when 1 is needed for power.
Who was talking about Apple?
And you think FOUR USB-C/TB 3 Ports is too few?!?
Re: (Score:3)
Apple's first MacBook with USB-C/TB had only one port. The Pro's that came out a couple years later had 4.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's first MacBook with USB-C/TB had only one port. The Pro's that came out a couple years later had 4.
Well, I agree that the first (non-pro) MacBook that had only 1 USB-C Port was a mistake; but it was not alone. There was a Pixel 2 (IIRC) notebook that was the same way.
I guess they both assumed that inexpensive USB-C Docks would take care of it, and they probably have to a large extent.
Re: (Score:2)
$40) (Score:2)
No one holds up Google's hardware design as "world class". Many here (and elsewhere) espouse Apple's hardware design as "world class". Shipping a laptop with a single connector for everything is decidedly NOT "world class". Yet because APPLE - we have to assume it was the right choice anyway, and the rest of the world is too stupid to realize it.
I am ABSOLUTELY with you that the single USB-C MacBook was a "what were they thinking?" moment! I guess the idea was that you would get an appropriate Dock that had a port-compliment to suit your needs.
Problem was, when that original MacBook with the single USB-C came out, there really wasn't that spectacular, to put it mildly. Now, it is quite different! There are several inexpensive (~$50) USB-C Docks that have a typical compliment of, for example, 3 or 4 USB 3.0 Ports, an SD/MiniSD (and sometimes also a
Re: (Score:2)
Today, the highest-end MacBook Pro has 4x USB-C and a headphone jack. That's 5 ports, and we need dongles for USB-A, ethernet, and a card reader. I'll grant that cardbus is largely replaced by thunderbolt, but the overall situation is still a massive step backward in portability and capability, if you use any peripherals.
Re: (Score:2)
In 2011, the highest-end MacBook Pro had power, 3x USB-A, ethernet, headphone, cardbus, and a card reader. That's 8 ports.
Today, the highest-end MacBook Pro has 4x USB-C and a headphone jack. That's 5 ports, and we need dongles for USB-A, ethernet, and a card reader. I'll grant that cardbus is largely replaced by thunderbolt, but the overall situation is still a massive step backward in portability and capability, if you use any peripherals.
Wrong.
It is neither.
In fact, it it is far MORE flexible, unless you rely on FireWire (which is still possible; but your choices are quite limited). And as far as total available "fanout", there is simply no comparison with any other laptop with ANY combination of dedicated ports you care to name.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As an owner and user of both, I wholeheartedly disagree.
What do you need to fan-out to, that cannot be found in one, or at most, two inexpensive (around $50 apiece) USB-C Docks these days?
Thundebolt (Score:2)
Thundebolt ? That thing compatible with nothing else ?
The controversial Detect Offbrand Cable feature (Score:5, Funny)
When you plug a cheap offbrand charging cable into your device, the USB-C standard signals this by emitting a blue flash and burning your device to a crisp. This feature has proven less popular with users than was at first envisioned.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice one!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
In USB type-c, offbrand cables are a minefield. The problem is that we have higher current running over tiny connectors. Much more room for destructive overcurrent situations. We are talking about orders of magnitude higher wattage, combined with a 24 pin connector in the same form factor we formerly only wanted to do 5 pins in.
When it works, it's beautiful marvel of modern engineering and manufacturing. But increasing current 10 fold and pincount 5 fold at the same time is a bit much for random cheap v
Re:The controversial Detect Offbrand Cable feature (Score:5, Informative)
It's not as bad as all that, just go on Amazon and search for a review by Benson Leung [gizmodo.com]. A Google engineer who has gone all over buying crappy cables and testing whether they meet the specs and are wired correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
Well speaking as a former Sales Support person at RadioShack (011909 for those that care) i would have made sure that the normal "gold" cables were available (s-Video did not have a silver/steel version).
I also took cutters to cables that were off spec (after my SM wrote them off of course).
Burn it. (Score:2)
>>burning your device to a crisp
That's patented By Samsung!
Dumb Idea Gen-C (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that Apple's connector is better, but how do you accidentally break the tongue deep inside a USB-C socket?
Re: (Score:2)
It's a pretty snug fit. I think you're more likely to pull the entire connector up from the PCB than you are to snap off the inner tongue.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be too smug, my iPhone 6+ had some troubles with its lightning socket after a couple of years. I got temporary relief by detail-cleaning the socket, but the problems always came back.
I'm kind of glad for wireless charging, I can at least lose a couple of insertion cycles a day by charging on a pad vs. a cable.
I think the general design of the lightning socket/cable is better due to the lack of a tongue in the socket, but in theory isn't the tongue somewhat safe from breakage because of the unifo
Re: (Score:2)
That does puzzle me, common sense says to make the thing likely to break the cable, not the device.
Of course, as the device size increases and companies want to surface mount these connectors, it's a lot of potential torque on the socket itself, so even without the tongue there is still peril.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have been using USB-C since the end of 2016 on my cell phone, USB-C on chromebook since mid 2017, and USB-C on Mac since late 2017, no issues whatsoever. The apple and google branded USB-C chargers work great charging all my devices. Mostly I just use the apple charger for everything since it will top off my phone in half an hour or so and then plug back in my laptop.
I've had zero durability issues thus far in something like 2 years. I also like that I can at a minimum trickle charge my laptop usi
Re: (Score:2)
Sent from my MacBook Pro (before anyone calls me an Apple hater)
Really bad design (Score:3)
This is almost a textbook example for the "Second System Effect" (Brooks). They put in everything and the kitchen sink. That is about the worst fail in engineering that you can have and still (seemingly) have a specification that looks like it may be possible to implement. Whoever designed this completely forgot that KISS is the prime directive for any form of engineering that needs to work.
Re: (Score:3)
kinks of the kitchen sink (Score:2)
If you put the kinks out of the pipes of the kitchen sink, it will become very smelly.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice fantasy, very unlikely to be coming true in reality. If they are smart, they make a small, strictly limited subset of the features of this monster, and _that_ we may eventually see working well.
Re: (Score:2)
That is about the worst fail in engineering that you can have and still (seemingly) have a specification that looks like it may be possible to implement. .
You're getting a bit carried away here. I have a USB-C laptop and phone and a small travel charger that charges both. I travel a lot, so it's fantastic finally having one charger for everything. The only issue I've had is trying to skimp on cheap cables, but this rule applies to pretty much everything.
Re: (Score:2)
You are talking about a small subset of the specified functionality. There is nothing wrong with that as long as it is carefully chosen. Does not make the standard any less of a mess, though.
Re: (Score:3)
Not at all. You don't need KISS in a specification for it to work perfectly. You also don't need it to be free of the kitchen sink.
What you do need for a device that is supposed to be universal is a specification that doesn't allow you to optionally implement only part of it, or a specification that doesn't make compatibility with its sub components not clear.
USB C's specification problems are not that everything and the kitchen sink is included, it's that everything and the kitchen sink is OPTIONAL. I can'
last laugh? (Score:2)
Apple is laughing behind a mountain of $29 lightning cables as the pundit world wanted them to move to USB-C.
Licensing cost? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this whole mess ultimately due to companies trying to charge too much for licenses to their proprietary charging technology?
Re:Licensing cost? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's due to the way USB 3 delivers up to 100W and cheap cable manufacturers not properly testing that.
With USB 3 the device can negotiate for high power delivery, which involves increasing the supplied voltage from 5V up to 20V. Due to physics increasing the voltage reduces the current needed to deliver 100W, which in turn reduces the amount of heat generated in the cable. Heat is wasted energy.
The problem is that the cheap cables don't implement the spec properly and are not rated for 20V/5A, so can end up supplying 20V on the wrong pins and damaging equipment. The equipment needed to properly test USB 3 power delivery costs thousands of Euro/USD, so some companies just skipped it.
Tesla, on the other hand .... (Score:5, Interesting)
Just last week I plugged a model 3 Tesla into a supercharger. It soaked up electrons at the rate of 120 kW. 300 Amp at 480 v or something insane. And while Tessie is drinking 11 kW in the garage 48 Amp at 240 v, to store enough energy to run the whole house for three days, the cell phone struggles to store 2300 mAh in one hour, enough to run one dinky little phone for 18 hours.....
What a mess...
Re: (Score:3)
Then it would seem that the solution to your problem would be to rig up a supercharger-to-USB3 adapter plug.
By my math, it looks like you could charge your phone in three seconds.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Then it would seem that the solution to your problem would be to rig up a supercharger-to-USB3 adapter plug.
By my math, it looks like you could charge your phone in three seconds.
I think you may have meant "charred" instead of "charged" :P
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
mess? (Score:2)
After learning the mistake of buying really cheap USB-C cables, does anyone still have a problem with them? I'm surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
I skimmed the article and I don't see big problems. Basically he says: you can't always fast-charge your phone on any adapter.
I don't really see the problem with that. It may not be what the author expected, though. It's quite simple; these USB-C chargers provide two or three volt/ampere combo's. But if your phone just happens to like a combo that's in between the offers, then it'll pick the lower one.
If you happen to know this, then you can simply look on the charger itself. It'll say for example something
Re: (Score:2)
>> does anyone still have a problem with them?
Yes.
Some devices are thunderbolt compatible
Some cables are thunderbolt compatible
All those do not fall back to USB when the other end does not talk thunderbolt.
So in the end, it works only 50% of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
So, it sounds like you're saying the problem is Thunderbolt, not USB-C.
Re: (Score:2)
Two incompatible standards but with the exact same connector.
Yeah, not a good idea.
Both are to blame for the mess.
The 100W limit is the big problem we still see (Score:4, Informative)
It sucks to plug your laptop in to your $250+ USB-C docking station then have the battery die before the end of the day since most high-end laptops need more power than that.
Re: (Score:2)
It sucks to plug your laptop in to your $250+ USB-C docking station then have the battery die before the end of the day since most high-end laptops need more power than that.
What are you doing that uses 100W constantly all day? I have a 45W charger and 30W mini slower travel charger that both work fine. Granted I'm not bitcoin mining or playing CSGO all day, but I think you may be an extreme edge case. My Dell XPS has a regular charger as well as USB-C so even your use case is covered.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the dock. Dell is coming out with a newer dock specifically to handle this scenario. Or maybe they already did. It's quite a bit more expensive than the regular dock, unfortunately.
Hearkens back to USB high speed vs USB full speed (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition to all the madness with charging, they also screwed up the USB 3.x nomenclature. We had a golden opportunity here to leave USB 3.0 referring to USB-A ports (add an extra revision for higher speeds), and have USB 3.1 ref to USB-C ports. That way if you saw USB 3.0 in the specs, you'd know it was a type A port. If you saw USB 3.1 in the specs, you'd know it was a type -C.
Instead they decided to rename USB 3.0 as USB 3.1. So if you see just "USB 3.1" it's referring to a older USB-A style port. If you see "USB 3.1 type C" it's referring to a USB-C port. Unless of course the manufacturer decides to omit "type C" and just call it USB 3.1 in the specs which it's actually a USB-C port. I've had to resort to looking up laptop reviews and viewing pictures of the ports on the sides to confirm exactly what ports it has and doesn't have.
It's like they intentionally trying to make it more confusing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
where is the problem? (Score:3)
It looks like everything performs and interoperates according to spec. It seems like a bonus that when you buy premium hardware with proprietary features, it performs even better.
I hadn't noticed. Seems useful. (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome back to 1960's cabling issues ala RS232 (Score:2)
Is this a null-modem cable?
Is this a cross-over cable?
Is this a TTL device?
Is this 5V, 3.3V, 1.8V, 9V, -11 V?
Except now:
Is this a charge cable or a data cable?
Can it support USB 3.1?
Can this port support Thunderbolt? WTF Apple.. how did this end up as part of USB3.. and why don't all your ports support it?
Is this a hub or a power passthrough adapter?
Can I buy a hub?
Can I buy a hub for less than $200?
How do I search for a fucking hub?
Re: (Score:2)
The whole "charge cable or data cable" is a mess created by poor quality manufacturers.
They wanted to get in on the high markup market of "premium cables" but couldn't build a cable that meets the USB specs and hence is unable to reliably transfer data. So they just brand it as a "super mega ultra fast powerful charge only cable".
USB 3.1 is backwards compatible with 3.0. No need to worry about it, if both devices can do 10Gbps, great. If one can't, why are you complaining that you can't magically upgrade a
third party cables can reduce changing speed? (Score:2)
No shit.
Replacing a quality cable with a long, shitty one full of thin aluminium or steel cored cable is going to reduce the charging speed of anything.
Devices only draw current until the voltage at the device drops to a predetermined level. The more voltage drop on your cheap ebay cable, the lower the current that will be used to charge the battery.
Same with crappy connectors with inadequate gold plating. Once the gold layer wears off, it will corrode. You'd best hope it doesn't do so while plugged in your
927 (Score:2)
Situation: There are 14 competing USB standards.
-Ridiculous! We need to develope one "Universal USB" standard that covers everyone's use cases.
-Yeah!
(Soon:) Situation: There are 15 competing USB standards.
(I thought USB was ridiculously non-universal [iki.fi] back when 3.0 had been released. I don't even have any devices for type C.)
Expensive (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
However a USB Cable I got in 1998 will still work with a USB 3 port on my laptop 20 years later.
The general rule of thumb of modern computing is if the connector fits, then it should work. (There are exceptions such cross over cables, and some serial connectors over RJ-45) If that port is a female, three rows, and 15 pins, then that is VGA port, if the device I get from a reputable source has that pin out, and I plug it into my computer, the device should work off of it.
Re:No surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Crossover is (mostly) fixed by automatic MDI/MDI-X detection in GbE. Has been a while since I ran into that problem. I do fully agree though. The problem is that the USB-C spec tries to do _everything_, and that cannot work. It is also a stellar example of a really bad design done by smart, but inexperienced engineers. Or by engineers that ignored their experience because they were part of a committee. Kiss rules all engineering that needs to survive in practice. There is no KISS at all in USB-C.
Re: (Score:2)
Crossover is (mostly) fixed by automatic MDI/MDI-X detection in GbE. Has been a while since I ran into that problem. I do fully agree though. The problem is that the USB-C spec tries to do _everything_, and that cannot work. It is also a stellar example of a really bad design done by smart, but inexperienced engineers. Or by engineers that ignored their experience because they were part of a committee. Kiss rules all engineering that needs to survive in practice. There is no KISS at all in USB-C.
SpaceX were able to land their booster on a tiny boat and a symmetrical connector that can Charge/Send Data/Video & Audio Transmission is the definition of "anything but KISS"?
I mean, come on. This is this isn't rocket science, stop messing with the damn standard with all those proprietary charging technology.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:No surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
This comment documents you've never used USB-C in your life.
The USB-C connector is what USB should have been from the start. Yes, PD (Power delivery) is optional and you have to be a smart consumer. And it's been knowledge for years now that cheap chinese OEM's were producing non-standard compliant cables and devices that could actively harm compliant devices because the cables and chargers did not meet the spec. That's not USB's fault.
Most of those problems are behind the standard. People also forget that it takes a LONG time for new USB standards to become dominant, USB itself took a decade to become commonplace. USB mini and micro took similar time frames and we aren't anywhere near 10 years yet for USB-C.
Frankly having moved most of my devices to USB-C I love the standard. I don't have to worry about orientation when plugging it in and dealing with the quantum effect where you always have to flip over the USB connector twice to get it to plug in. Not only that but USB-C is the most durrable connector the USB committee has ever approved. And on top of that the Power delivery spec was integrated into the main spec and made standard. In addition the spec has legs in that it can be expanded for increased data transfer much easier than past standards without changing the connector.
USB-C is a god send.
Re:No surprise (Score:5, Funny)
USB-C is a god send.
Well, there is the problem.
We're all athiests.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would 'scientist' imply 'atheist'?
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to generally agree.
USB-C is in its USB1.1 phase of life -- its still pretty flaky, and the garbage cables and poor implementations and so on plagued early USB too.
Short term USB-C is already useful despite the issues, and long term it will be fantastic.
My only real grievance is that some vendors like Apple went all in. A USB-C port or 2 on a new laptop is quite desirable. ONLY USB-C ports on a new laptop OTOH is idiotic.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's been knowledge for years now that cheap chinese OEM's were producing non-standard compliant cables and devices
This! I've got a drawer full of USB A, B, C,1,2,3 mini, micro and iPhone both Thunder and Lightning that don't work properly. Cheap cables have always been flaky, this is nothing new to USB-C. I've also got a ton of old headphones that only work in one ear for the same reason
Re:No surprise (Score:5, Interesting)
While having a poka-yoke [wikipedia.org] connector is good, what made USB 1 so successful was that it was simpler and cheaper than the competitors. The Apple dock connector had 30 pins, including dedicated pins for audio, video, power, media control, serial, usb, and firewire. RS232 had 9 and had no error correction, no metadata, no power, and was slow. Firewire with a lean 6-pins allowed for bidirectional communications and was essentially a peer-to-peer network. USB had a mere 4 pins, was unidirectional, and didn't require the devices to know how to talk to each other (hence the need for a hub). It was technically inferior, but won because of price. USB2 merely improve the speed and power of USB1, so it was a no brainer to win in the market.
USB 3 abandoned the simplicity that made USB 1 and 2 successful. It took the kitchen sink model, and it is flailing the same way it's predecessors did when they took that approach.
Re:No surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
The USB-C connector is what USB should have been from the start. Yes, PD (Power delivery) is optional and you have to be a smart consumer. And it's been knowledge for years now that cheap chinese OEM's were producing non-standard compliant cables and devices that could actively harm compliant devices because the cables and chargers did not meet the spec. That's not USB's fault.
Would those be USB 2.0, USB 3.1, USB 3.1 Gen 2, USB Full Featured, USB Superspeed, USB Superspeed+ or Thunderbolt3 USB-C cables that you are talking about?
I only listed three different types of cables there but they are all different markings and symbols which are commonly used. Apart from the symbol on the plug all the cables are of course identical. Then add power delivery and PD variants of the logos. Non-compliant cables are yet another but relatively small issue, though the ones that carry the compliance logos and slide into the supply chain can be scary.
When people get confused the better solution is not to say that they aren't smart enough, but consider if there are issues with the product.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, you've clearly never used USB-C to make that claim. The USB-C connector is at least as durable as A if not more so. I've lost A connectors and cables before, I've never lost a USB-C cable (knock on wood) yet. The connector might be smaller but it's also a lot more durable in that all the pins are inside the connector and protected. It also has a definite audible and touch sensitive click when inserted so that you know when it's connected.It's the first USB with that by the way. Micro was like trying
Re:No surprise (Score:4, Interesting)
That's funny. I've had just the opposite experience with type C. The only device I've had with type C was my Nexus 5X. After a few months the connector became so loose that I couldn't hold the phone and charge it without pushing the connector into the phone constantly. Eventually the data part wouldn't connect at all. It died after two years for unrelated reasons. But I never had connection problems like that with any phone using Micro USB, including my current one which has a micro port in the same place as the Nexus had the type C port.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
USB-Objective-C (Score:2)
I prefer the Objective-C standard which is syntactic sugar on the USB-C which allows the device to interpret the message from the computer to the device however it wants to. It can proudly be a USB-1 if it wants to even if the computer is shouting USB-C messages at it.
Re: (Score:2)
I've had very little problems getting USB 2.0 or 3.0 speeds over most USB 1.1 cables under 6 feet in length.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've had very little problems getting USB 2.0 or 3.0 speeds over most USB 1.1 cables under 6 feet in length.
Really? Your USB 1.1 cables have the extra pins necessary for USB 3.0 speeds?
Stop lying.
Re:No surprise (Score:5, Informative)
USB 3, like PCIe, uses multiple serial lanes for increased bandwidth. Each lane is entirely independent with its own synchronization and clock, which is what makes it still a "serial" connection by definition, not a "parallel" connection.
Re:No surprise (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:No surprise (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps the ugliest plug in creation, but impressive how it finesses USB 1/2 compatibility. Impressive in a horrific kind of way.
Re: (Score:3)
"And it's going to be slow and shitty because it's USB 1... so what's even the point of that?"
I have lots of stuff from 2000 that still work fine... barcode scanners, label printers, lego mindstorms, its nice its not a hassle to use them... well it is with USB-C only devices, but most laptops from sensible vendors still have USB-A ports.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the cable would run at usb 2 speeds if plugged into a USB 3 port. The cable is missing wires for the faster speed of usb 3.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
Chief, in my opinion, amongst its many problems is that it's a standard without any form of independent regulatory or licensing body to render verdict on the thousands of devices out there are "compliant" or "not compliant". When I was still doing hardware development, no one wanted to touch USB, it is such a nest of hard problems and impossible solutions. Even things as simple as memory keys might, or might not work on a given host controller and/or with a given version of an operating system. Most of them provably did not obey the electrical spec (pirate code?), but that's ok because most laptops out there did not either, creating some fun and dangerous scenarios which I'm not going to outline here.
And the electrical spec was at least simple to read. The protocol and software spec is much more involved and implementations varied even more wildly.
At the core USB is like it is to ensure a wide ecosystem of cheap components that was all inclusive, and could be easy made in any cheap shop in China. Possibly this is good, in that it ensures access to small and large outfits equally, and in a place like china where one US cent is a big deal, it let everyone in. On the other hand, sometimes that corner you cut shouldn't have been cut and while the device may "work" it doesn't actually work as intended, across the board. And so other standards would require you have your device tested and certified, and made to work as intended. That doesn't really exist for USB. People throw the logo on and launch their stuff out there without any consideration. Then when it doesn't work, they say it's not compatible with X or Y. To a customer, we're left with "what the fuck, is it USB or not?".
Re: docking station (Score:2)
You bought into Apple 's proprietary connector. You deserve to be fucked.
The good old days (Score:2)
Yup. AT vs XT keyboards, RS232, bus mice, ADB mice, expensive SCSI flatbed scanners, and proprietary cards for handheld scanners.
I remember hotplugging my AT keyboard and blowing a fuse on my motherboard, luckily it was easily fixed with a soldering iron.
IEEE 1394 (Firewire) was pretty nice. But Apple had a lot of fucking balls copying the Gameboy link cable connector then charging $1/port. The power delivery was considered problematic for some because of the large voltage range allowed. But a buck circuit
Re: (Score:2)
Oh good, your singular anecdotal experience with one device disproves all the contrary anecdotal evidence. Thank you, thank you, thank you! /s
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Did you see what protocol your laptop supports? Maybe direct your frustration at the manufacturer if they require their proprietary charger instead of a standard one, not the specification.
If that's that case, they probably did it on purpose, to sell more chargers.